Pete Rose - Do you think he will ever be in the hall of fame? *POLL*
Knuckles
Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭
24 Seasons
G: 3562 AB: 14053 R: 2165 H: 4256 2B: 746 3B: 135 HR: 160 RBI: 1314 BB: 1566 SO: 1143 SB: 198 CS: 149 BA: .303
Awards:
• 1963: National League Rookie of the Year
• 1969: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1970: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1973: National League Most Valuable Player
• 1975: World Series Most Valuable Player
• 1999: Named to All-Century Team (OF)
0
Comments
matt
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>I think if he does make it in he won't be around to see it happen. >>
I think that would be the biggest injustice of this whole mess. How many other players bet on games? I am sure lots, they just were not caught.
matt
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Give me a break. You're probably the same people begging for a coke addict like Strawberry to get in.
love the pic knuckles.
GG
mike
<< <i>I'd be interested in how many hits Shoeless Joe would have had after being robbed of the better part of his career after being aquitted and found innocent. Pete can wait as long as Joe has........ >>
Second ^
If you add that option, I'd vote for it
GG
<< <i>I'd be interested in how many hits Shoeless Joe would have had after being robbed of the better part of his career after being aquitted and found innocent. Pete can wait as long as Joe has........ >>
I'd be interested in how many hits I would've had if I would've played less Euchre and drank less beer in college and concentrated on my game.
Rose had 4256 hits.
That being said, Shoeless Joe not being in is a joke too.
It's what happens on the field. ON THE FIELD.
How can Rose gambling affect how hard he played and what he did?
Drug addicts and wife beaters get multiple chances. Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating. Anyone who is on Rose's a$$ needs to get off their high horse. You'll never convince me.
Never, Never, Never.
That looks painfull..
I firmly (and I do mean FIRMLY) believed that baseball was wrong and he did not bet on baseball
I always felt that he Damm Well should be in the Hall of Fame!
Then when he came out in his book and admitted that he had bet on baseball, what 14 or so years after all the BS of the late 1980's, and admitted that he had LIED to the world, baseball and his fans, I just basically said "To He!! with him"
If he had come clean in the beginning, when Dowd and Giamatti were investigating him, then yes, serve his time and then by now, I believe he would be in the Hall of Fame today...I would whole-heartedly support that!
But since he thumbed his nose at society and lied about everything, I now firmly believe he DOES NOT DESERVE the honor of Hall of Fame induction.
Let him possibly be inducted in the future, but ONLY after he has died, and then only AFTER Shoeless Joe Jackson has been inducted!!!!!
Steve
Too much denial by Pete has really hurt him over the past few years. I don't know if he even cares anymore. Selig being in charge hasn't helped his cause any either. As i am 44, i am sure i will be responding to this same post 20 years from now. Even the pleading from people like Mike Schmidt wasn't enough to get it done. Now we have a whole new debate--STERIODS--. The photo's alone are enough for me to question Barry and Mark from getting in. Barry came in at 185 lbs soaking wet and now is around 245-250. Mark came in at 225 and ended up around 265. I also understand the whole conditioning stuff that the players do now vs. then. But now we are going to question eveything because of drug enhancing performances. Will Pete ever get in? Not in my lifetime....
Get the night time lurker votes in..
i have never like that jacka$$ sellout johnny bench for doggin him out when he was elected into cooperstown. i don't think mike schmidt helped by crying and lamenting pete rose during his hof election weekend speech either though. steroids today are much worse than gambling IMHO, friggin ty cobb was the shadiest mofo in the world and people forgave him.
that movie on ESPN Hustle was pretty shady and I believe some of it, but he will be inducted post-morten, w/o a doubt. death makes angels out of us all.
julen
RIP GURU
<< <i>Let him possibly be inducted in the future, but ONLY after he has died, and then only AFTER Shoeless Joe Jackson has been inducted!!!!! >>
I think this correctly summarizes his only chance at the HOF. Unfortunately for Pete, Jackson will never be inducted, so *poof*, there goes his only chance.
GG
<< <i>remember, not being a jerk is not a requirement to get into the HOF. His stats speak for themselves. the rest is fodder...
GG >>
in reality you are very wrong GG. Being a jerk is what might keep Jim Rice out of the Hall. Remember, writers vote these guys in and always have. If they don't like the player because he was a jerk to the media during a great portion of a career then it is entirely possible to be kept out of the Hall. And that is the way it is wrong or right.....
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Will steroids hurt Big Mac, Sosa, Palmiero or any other of the boys who are suspected of taking them? Is that not worse than gambling? Giambi had an affliction caused by steroids, all but admitted taking them, and then got no suspension. But if he bet on baseball he would have had the lifetime ban. What an injustice. It makes me wonder about people. McGwire will be a first ballot HOF'er and IMO the juice was the cause of the home run insurgance of the 90's and early 2000's.
We could ask ?'s all day. How many would Big Mac have hit if he didn't juice? How many would Babe hit if he had? I also remember, i.e. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Harmon Killebrew...sluggers slow down at 38,39 and not increase their production like the most secritive and defensive man ever (hint rhymes with Parry Ponds).
When it boils down to it I agree with all the other guys who said they should be evaluated for what they did on the field. Should Rose be in the hall, YES. Should Big Mac, Bonds and Sosa, YES! Evene if they took the cream and the clear, or the shot and a beer, they put up better numbers than anyone else at their time! Should their #'s be compared to that of the guys in the 70's and prior, that is another discussion. But should they all be in the hall, YES!
OT: Does anyone else think of that great movie of the same name when all thes newscasters are identifying "Deep Throat?"
I'm not a crook
My Auctions
Rose wont be voted in until one of two things happen
1) MLB reinstates Rose
2) There is turnover in the HOF board of directors....get those old fogies out!
I have never thought that Rose is a good man BUT he was a GREAT baseball player. That statement is opinion vs fact. He deserves to be in to celebrate his accomplishments. You cant pretend what he did never happened.
Two Wrongs Don't Make A right! They both belong IN NOW!!!!
Let's all remember a few things:
Betting on baseball is against the rules of the game. Ever since 1919 it has been just about the single most important rule in the game. Gambling and throwing games nearly destroyed the game in the early years of its life and after the Black Sox the league got very serious about preventing any future such problems. You may not agree with the rule and you may not think it is necessary in today's game, but that doesn't matter. It's a rule and one of the most serious rules in the game.
There are lots of other things players do that are bad, but aren't against the rules of the game. Comparing Pete Rose to players that beat their wives, are bad teammates, are jerks to the press or beat up fans is confusing the issue. Sure, those things are bad, but they are not *against the rules.* See the difference? While taking drugs is against the rules, the penalty is different. That's why Darryl Strawberry was able to return to the game. He served his sentence and was free to return. Pete Rose is still serving his difference. As for the steroid issue...does anyone know if the substances used were actually against the rules before the recent changes? I'm not sure, but even if they were, there would be penalties in place for breaking that rule.
So, Pete Rose broke the one rule that comes with a lifetime ban from the game. You can say the rule and the penalty are wrong, but that doesn't matter. Not only did he break it, but he lied about it and attacked anyone and everyone that has told the truth for the last twenty years. His "apology" a few years ago wasn't even an apology. It was more like "I'm sorry I got caught and I'm sorry that everyone's upset about it." If he had come out and said "I did it. It was wrong. It was my own fault and I have no one to blame," maybe the reaction would have been different.
I would like all of the Pete Rose supporters to answer this one simple question: Why should a player that has admitted to knowingly breaking the one rule that comes with a lifetime ban be forgiven when he does not appear to be remorseful or even understand the significance of his actions?
Your point is very well taken. However, gambling has proliferated tremendously lately. It is not the taboo it once was. I understand a rule is a rule, and maybe Rose knew it carried a lifetime ban and he felt he could beat it and is still trying to. The fact that he gambled on baseball although he never bet his own team to lose (right?) really makes it no difference in my mind. Who really cares that he bet his own team to win? Or bet on other teams he wasn't even playing?
The fact of the matter is, MLB is holding Rose out as some sort of token of their integrity when Bonds will be heralded when he gets in as a steroid pumper is flat out foolish. Sure Bonds is "innocent", but in the eyes of most he is a red faced liar and one of the biggest jerks in the game.
MLB can leave Rose "out" but most all consider him to be "in" and as others said he is all over the record books and HOF anyway. So in a way its all one big farse.
I change my vote. Keep him out. Rose would probably rather live on as the thorn in MLBs side than get in after he dies anyway i'm sure.
GG
When the players and/or managers bet on games, you have no baseball. period
Thou shall not bet on baseball. You do and you get a lifetime ban. No discussions, negotiations, or exceptions. Period.
Regardless if he bet against his team or not, he still bet on baseball while he was a manager and possibly while a player (only he knows). He knew the rules and the consequences, yet still made his daily bets.
Put his memorabilia in the Hall but not him.
What the Blacksox did and what Pete Rose did are entirely different. The Blacksox were not gambling, they took money to throw the World Series. Pete Rose was betting on his team(s) to win and playing/coaching to make that happen. There has never been any evidence that he bet to lose and made any decisions as a player or coach to ensure that would happen. Other sports have forgiven players for gambling so why not baseball. Both, Alex Karras and Paul Hornung were suspended for betting on Football and both are now in the HOF. The man has "done his time" so to speak. Put him in. BTW, I happen to think that greedy ownership almost destroyed the game in its early years, not gambling and throwing games. The Blacksox wouldn't have conspired to throw the series if the players of that era were paid and treated like employees not property. The Chicago White Sox, in the early 20th century, had one of the most tight fisted, penny pinchin' owners in the league. It is very unlikely that the players of today would need to conspire to throw a World Series. Just my $0.02.
Scott
T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
1981 Topps FB PSA 10
1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up
My Sets
<< <i>ajw,
Your point is very well taken. However, gambling has proliferated tremendously lately. It is not the taboo it once was. I understand a rule is a rule, and maybe Rose knew it carried a lifetime ban and he felt he could beat it and is still trying to. >>
This is a baseball rule. People in society playing poker and joining NCAA pools has NOTHING to do with it. It's a rule and Rose knew it. He admits breaking the rule and lying about it for 20 years. But I'm supposed to feel sorry for him and let him off the hook?
<< <i>
The fact that he gambled on baseball although he never bet his own team to lose (right?) really makes it no difference in my mind. Who really cares that he bet his own team to win? Or bet on other teams he wasn't even playing? >>
If I'm the bookie that Pete bets with, what do you think goes through my mind if Pete bets on the Reds to win seven games in a row, but then doesn't bet on game number eight? Hmmm. Maybe it's a tip to me that the one person with the best knowledge of the team is not confident in their chances that particular day. Is that not a problem for you?
<< <i>
The fact of the matter is, MLB is holding Rose out as some sort of token of their integrity when Bonds will be heralded when he gets in as a steroid pumper is flat out foolish. Sure Bonds is "innocent", but in the eyes of most he is a red faced liar and one of the biggest jerks in the game.
>>
You missed the important point in my post. The rule Rose broke comes with a lifetime ban. The rule Bonds broke (if there even was a rule about it at the time) comes with something less than a lifetime ban. If the rule Bonds broke provided for a ten day suspension, I will not argue that it should be reduced to five days. If the rule provided for a two year supension, I will not argue that it should be reduced to one year. But, you are arguing that Rose's lifetime ban should be reduced. Why?
<< <i>
I change my vote. Keep him out. Rose would probably rather live on as the thorn in MLBs side than get in after he dies anyway i'm sure.
GG >>
Heh. Maybe I did change your mind.
<< <i><<Gambling and throwing games nearly destroyed the game in the early years of its life>>
What the Blacksox did and what Pete Rose did are entirely different. The Blacksox were not gambling, they took money to throw the World Series. Pete Rose was betting on his team(s) to win and playing/coaching to make that happen. There has never been any evidence that he bet to lose and made any decisions as a player or coach to ensure that would happen.
>>
No one is saying that what Pete did is the equal of the Black Sox. What we are saying is that MLB decided that it cannont afford *any* gambling on the games by players/managers/owners. MLB has the right to make its own rules. You may disagree with them, but MLB doesn't have to ask you, or me, or anyone else, what the rules should be.
<< <i>Other sports have forgiven players for gambling so why not baseball. Both, Alex Karras and Paul Hornung were suspended for betting on Football and both are now in the HOF. >>
So what? The NFL and MLB choose to treat the same crime differently. Texas has the death penalty and Wisconsin does not.
<< <i>The man has "done his time" so to speak. >>
No, he hasn't. If he had a ten year ban, then he would have served his time. Do you support releasing convicts that serve twenty years of a lifetime sentence?
<< <i>The Chicago White Sox, in the early 20th century, had one of the most tight fisted, penny pinchin' owners in the league. It is very unlikely that the players of today would need to conspire to throw a World Series. Just my $0.02.
Pete Rose made millions of dollars, but he still broke the first rule in all of baseball and also cheated on his taxes. Maybe he's just a bad, bad guy that was a great, great player.
<< <i>
I would like all of the Pete Rose supporters to answer this one simple question: Why should a player that has admitted to knowingly breaking the one rule that comes with a lifetime ban be forgiven when he does not appear to be remorseful or even understand the significance of his actions? >>
I think the point trying to be made is: The rules are stupid.
You are right though, AJW, he broke the rule and should suffer the consequence. That will not change the fact that cheating(not only steroids but the vasiline ball, or razor blade in the pocket whatever) challenges the integrity of the game far more than betting on your own team to win.
And I agree with the above post that the Black Sox and Pete Rose should not even be muttered in the same breath.
My Auctions
<< <i>Even murderers get out of jail on parole. You mean to tell me that Rose doesn't belong in the HOF because he was an idiot and broke the gambling rule? >>
Yup. That's the reason. It's not really that hard to understand, is it?
AJW, how does that rule possibly make sense to you? I understand its a rule, and I know we are taught when we are very young a rule is a rule and do not break it, but I am asking you to break out of that 5 year old mentality at least just for one minute.
Why should his crime be given that punishment and please don't answer because its a rule. That is so laim. We are all asking WHY gambling as Rose did should carry a lifetime ban, and BECAUSE its a rule is not an answer.
My Auctions
<< <i>AJW, how does that rule possibly make sense to you? I understand its a rule, and I know we are taught when we are very young a rule is a rule and do not break it, but I am asking you to break out of that 5 year old mentality at least just for one minute.
Why should his crime be given that punishment and please don't answer because its a rule. That is so laim. We are all asking WHY gambling as Rose did should carry a lifetime ban, and BECAUSE its a rule is not an answer. >>
At last, someone hit on the real argument here. If you believe Rose should be in the Hall, you need to attack the rule, and not the ruling. Frankly, though, you're putting the burden on the wrong side. The rule is in place, so it is up to those that want it changed to convince the others that it should be changed. It is not my job to convince you that the rule is good. You want the change, so you have the burden of showing why.
Personally, I don't have a strong feeling on the issue. Is the penalty pretty harsh? Yeah, it is. But, the penalty was not harsh when the rule was created (post 1919). When viewed historically, the penalty is certainly in line with the crime.
Additionally, the rule is a really, really easy one to not break. It's not as if you can "accidentially" gamble on the game. It takes a very specific intent to break the rule. Finally, the rule and punishment are widely known to everyone that it covers, so no one can punishable by the rule can reasonably say, "I didn't know I couldn't bet on baseball."
So, while I can certainly understand those that believe the punishment is too harsh, I don't have a lot of sympathy because (to review):
1. The rule is not harsh when viewed in historical context
2. The rule and penalty are widely known
3. The rule is incredibly easy to follow if one does not wish to be faced with its punishment
Now, the argument against the rule probably goes like this: The rule was created at a time when gambling was a big problem in the sport and needed to be addressed. Those circumstances no longer apply, so we should relax the rule. Is that about right?
Well, one would quickly respond by saying: gambling isn't a problem any longer *because* of the rule, not in spite of it. If we relax the rule, we run the risk of seeing gambling become a greater problem in the game. Why risk that downside when the only upside is decreasing the penalty given to someone who has broken the most important administrative rule in the history of the game?
(Let me repeat that I don't have a strong opinion on the rule's propriety in today's game. But, I do think that Pete Rose is a less than sympathetic plaintiff, so perhaps another person would have more luck with me...and with the millions of people that agree with me.)
This seems more severe than gambling.
Linky
Think he will get a lifetime ban?
I think this is more severe because with everyone firing guns in the air there would be no safety.
My Auctions
My Auctions
<< <i>Because there is NO BASEBALL when the players or managers gamble! The game cannot exist >>
My wish for the day is that everyone offering excuses for Pete Rose will read this quote three times and make the necessary effort to understand it.
I have written thousands of words on this forum condemning the humanoid hormone factory occupying the body of what was once Barry Bonds, but what Rose did was FAR worse than what Bonds has done. Rose will never be in the HOF because Rose has no right to be in the HOF.
<< <i>This seems more severe than gambling.
Linky
Think he will get a lifetime ban?
I think this is more severe because with everyone firing guns in the air there would be no safety. >>
Who cares? Unless the guy was a baseball player and bet on a baseball game, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Life is overwhelmed with exceptions to "black and white" rules, we all know this. So if you are the type that is utterly inflexible, then yes he knowlingly broke the rules, but his gambling never affected the outcome of any games since he never bet to lose. He lied about it for decades, yes this is true. HOWEVER, as a PLAYER he belongs in the HOF. As a manager, of course not. As a PLAYER, there is no arguement. Maybe player and manager considerations should be seperate?
GG
I got pulled over the other day for having an "expired license plate sticker". truth is I lost the sticker and since it was already 8 months into the year I said screw it and didn't get a new one. Got a ticket ($75) bought a replacement sticker, went to court and they threw it out. your line of thinking on Rose and his lifetime ban would have gotten me a revoked license, my car impounded, and a fine. This is the real world, its not so black and white.
Besides, your truely kidding yourself if you think gambling on baseball is really this rare. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe players and such gamble on games in Vegas? Seriously now. I'm sure there are thousands within MLB whom gamble on the game, or have friends/family that gamble for them. Rose is like the SEC insider trading scapegoat Martha Stewert was. Martha made $40,000 (she is worth half a billion) on the "insider trade" and the public spent millions to prosecute and "send a message". Its all such a farce.
<< <i>While the rule book is black and white, the reality of living is not. Betting on your team to WIN as a manager is in no way equal to a lifetime ban as a PLAYER. Betting on your team to WIN is NOT equal to betting on your team to lose. There should be some consideration there. If life were so black and white, we would have 10X the number of jails and we would be living in singapore. Exceptions should be made for the sake of rationalization and reason. His ban has been long enough, he has apologized, admitted his error and lets not forget as you said he "is a great great ball player" without question one of the best in the last 150 years. >>
Actually, the rule and its application *are* black and white. It says that you can't bet on baseball games. Here is the actual text of the rule:
Rule 21(d) provides:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
How is that unclear? I'd like you to argue that Pete Rose did not bet on baseball games. This may be made tougher by the fact that he has admitted doing so, but I know you're up to the challenge.
<< <i>I'm sure there are thousands within MLB whom gamble on the game >>
Geez, even ONE thousand would be enough to cover every single player and manager with room left over for quite a few coaches. But if you're sure that there are multiple thousands, then I guess it must be true.
Personally, I think it is extremely unlikely that there are, at any given time, more than a relative handful of players or managers of sufficiently low intelligence to gamble on a baseball game; I mean the ability to walk upright almost precludes the possibility of being THAT stupid.
But, more importantly, IT DOESN'T MATTER how many people are doing it. We have laws against murder, thousands of people continue to do it anyway, therefore we should be more lenient on murderers. That is exactly the argument being made on behalf of Rose.
I think you missed the point that the rule ***is*** black and white however life ***is not***. There are laws that are broken daily that ARE black and white however the punishment is to be decided by the circumstances. You will never try to see the other side of the arguement so this bantering is futile.
My Auctions
<< <i>AJW-
I think you missed the point that the rule ***is*** black and white however life ***is not***. There are laws that are broken daily that ARE black and white however the punishment is to be decided by the circumstances. You will never try to see the other side of the arguement so this bantering is futile. >>
You're absolutely right. I did misread your post. Sorry about that. I do not, however, see how Pete Rose's actions are anything but black and white. I again ask you to present an argument that Pete Rose did not bet on baseball.
In your example, you had a good argument that you actually did comply with the statute in question. I'm still waiting your argument that Rose actually did comply with rule 21(d).
My Auctions